Consultation Outcome Report
Updated 28 August 2025
© Crown copyright 2025
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-merchant-shipping-vessels-in-commercial-use-for-sport-or-pleasure-regulations-2025/outcome/consultation-outcome-report
Section 1: Introduction
1.1. This consultation sought views on a new Statutory Instrument (SI) and accompanying Code, The Code of Practice for Small Vessels in Commercial use for Sport or Pleasure (the “Sport or Pleasure Vessel Code”), which will provide a domestic legal underpinning for vessels used commercially for Sport or Pleasure to operate on a commercial basis.
1.2. The Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) Regulations 2025 and accompanying Code of Practice applies to vessels used commercially for Sport or Pleasure. The new Regulations will apply to seagoing United Kingdom vessels wherever they may be and to other seagoing vessels operating from United Kingdom ports whilst in United Kingdom waters.
1.3. The new Regulations will revoke and replace the Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/2771) (“the 1998 Regulations”). The new Regulations will give effect to two Codes of Practice: Part A of the REG Yacht Code for large vessels of 24 metres or more load line length and the new “Sport or Pleasure Vessel Code” for small vessels of less than 24 metres load line length. The new Regulations will provide a more coherent legal framework for operators of large or small vessels operating commercially for sport or pleasure.
1.4. Part A of the REG Yacht Code already has effect. The REG Yacht Code is not the subject of this consultation; however, the new Regulations will continue to give effect to this Code as well as set out comprehensive requirements for the survey and certification of large vessels.
1.5. The new Sport or Pleasure Vessel Code reflects the development of standards since the publication of the previous editions; addresses a number of key Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) recommendations into improving safety standards for vessels in this sector; and contains a regulatory framework for vessels using alternative fuel sources and propulsion types that will keep the UK at the forefront of decarbonising the shipping industry.
1.6. The new Regulations also make consequential amendments to other instruments to ensure that the requirements for vessels in commercial use for sport or pleasure apply consistently across the maritime regulatory framework.
1.7. Consultees were invited to comment on any aspect of this consultation. A more in-depth explanation of the areas for consideration can be found in Section 3 of this document.
1.8. A full summary of responses received can be found in the annexes to this report.
Section 2: Consultation
2.1. The consultation was carried out from 4 December 2024 until 25 February 2025. Full details of the consultation can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-merchant-shipping-vessels-in-commercial-use-for-sport-or-pleasure-regulations-2025
2.2. The consultation was published on GOV.UK for any member of the public who wished to read it and/or respond to it. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency also specifically notified other Maritime Associations such as The Professional Charter Association, The Professional Boatman’s Association, Certifying Authorities, Recognised Organisations, and other interested parties, including Government departments.
A total of 422 responses were received from individuals and organisations consisting of over 2200 individual comments on the SI, the Sport or Pleasure Vessel Code, and its Annexes. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency would like to thank all those who took the time to consider its proposals.
Section 3: Thematic Analysis
3.1. The volume and breadth of the additional comments on the draft Code that were received required a more detailed analysis than the responses to the set questions outlined in Section 4.
3.2. The MCA undertook a thematic analysis of the responses received, grouping comments by subject or by Code section. All the comments received were reviewed and approximately 42% of these were found to require closer examination and amendment of the draft Code.
3.3. The comments that didn’t warrant closer review were noted as either statements, misunderstandings of the Code requirements, or were provided without any context or reference so could not be assessed further.
3.4. The top 20 main themes of the comments received have been summarised in Fig 1 below:
Fig. 1
3.5. A more detailed summary of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s analysis can be found in Annex C of this report.
Section 4: Consultation Responses
4.1. The consultation document set out a series of questions on specific areas of the SI and the Sport or Pleasure Vessel Code with ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘no response’ options, and respondents were invited to add any further comments.
4.2. All the responses to the consultation questions and any additional comments that were received can be found in Annex A.
4.3. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s response to the responses and comments can be found in Annex B.
4.3. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency note that there was a total of 307 responders to the consultation that returned a ‘nil response’ to one or more of these questions, instead opting to provide further additional comments for consideration. 264 of these 307 responders submitted identical letters in support of one of six organisations linked to the UK sail training sector. A summary of the responses to questions relating to the proposed Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) Regulations 2025 and accompanying Code of Practice (“Sport & Pleasure Vessel Code”) are outlined below:
Q1. Are you in favour of the proposal to make the Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) Regulations 2024 and the accompanying Code of Practice (“Sport or Pleasure Vessel Code”)? Yes / No. Please provide a brief explanation why/why not.
Summary of consultee views
There were 150 responses to this question. Of those who expressed a preference, the majority were in favour of the proposed Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) Regulations 2025 and accompanying Code of Practice (“the Sport or Pleasure Vessel Code”)
Maritime and Coastguard Agency response
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency welcomes the support from respondents about the proposed new regulations and have taken steps to address the concerns raised by those who were against or provided a nil return. These amendments were presented to Certifying Authorities, industry representatives and owner/operator associations during an MCA hosted stakeholder engagement event in May 2025 and were warmly welcomed. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency intends to proceed with the proposed Code and SI.
Q2. Do you consider the restructuring of the Sport or Pleasure Vessel Code adds clarity to the requirements and assists the reader in navigating their way through the Code of Practice? Yes / No. Please provide a brief explanation why/why not.
Summary of consultee views
There were 144 responses to this question. The majority were in favour of the proposed restructuring.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency response
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency note that changes to an established structure may require a period of familiarisation; however, it believes the revised layout to be more user friendly, easier to read and less ambiguous than previous editions of the Code. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency intends to go ahead with the proposed structure.
Q3. Do you consider the new definitions which have been included in Section 2 of the Sport & Pleasure Vessel Code to be appropriate and fit for purpose? Yes / No. Please provide a brief explanation why/why not.
Summary of consultee views
There were 146 responses to this question. Of those who responded, the majority expressed no preference on including the revised and new definitions.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency response
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency notes the response from respondents about the proposed new definitions and intends to proceed with the proposed Code on the basis that these new definitions add clarity to existing areas of the Code and supports the developments made for new and emerging technologies.
Q4. Do you consider the definitions of ‘watertight’ and ‘weathertight’ sufficiently adequate in the context of how they are used throughout the Code? Yes / No. Please provide a brief explanation why/why not, and if not, what amendments should be made.
Summary of consultee views
There were 152 responses to this question. Of those who expressed a preference, the majority considered the definitions sufficient in the contexts used throughout the Code.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency response
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency welcomes the feedback. Noting no strong opinions that the existing definitions were not already fit for purpose, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency intends to proceed without further amendment.
Q5. Do you consider the Code would benefit from the clarification of the following terms:
(a) Recess.
(b) Stepdeck.
(c) Cockpit.
(d) Well Deck.
(e) Continuous Watertight Weatherdeck.
(f) Bulwark Area.
Yes / No. Please provide a brief explanation why/why not, and if so, what clarifications should be made.
Summary of consultee views
There were 148 responses to this question with the majority in favour of including these definitions.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency response
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency welcomes the feedback and will include these in the Sport or Pleasure Vessel Code as appropriate. Terms will only be defined if they are used in multiple occurrences throughout the Code and the meaning is not sufficiently clear. Those included in the revised Code are ‘recess’ and ‘cockpit’. The other terms such as continuous watertight weatherdeck include two already defined words, or are not otherwise used throughout the Code, negating the requirement for further definition.
Q6. An open boat, inflatable boat, rigid inflatable boat or boat with buoyant collar shall not carry activity related equipment, or a combination of passengers and activity related equipment, for which the activity related equipment element is in excess of 1000kg.
Do you consider the Sport or Pleasure Vessel Code would benefit from increasing the restriction of 1000kg? Yes / No. Please provide a brief explanation why/why not, and if so, what the revised limit should be.
Summary of consultee views
There were 154 responses to this question. There was no strong consensus on whether the Code would benefit from increasing the limit of 1000kg.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency response
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency note the split in responses with no clear majority either in favour or against and the overwhelming majority of respondents not providing a view one way or the other. It is therefore the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s intention to proceed with the limit of 1000kg as this maintains the status quo of existing Code requirements.
Q7. Following on from Q5; vessels carrying more than 1000kg of activity related equipment are required to be provided with a stability information booklet. In reviewing the limitation in Q5, do you consider it necessary to also review this limitation for vessels requiring a stability information booklet? Yes / No. Please provide a brief explanation why/why not, and if so, what the revised limit should be?
Summary of consultee views
There were 157 responses to this question. Of those who expressed a preference, the majority did not consider it necessary to review the limitation on requirements for stability information booklets based on carriage of activity related equipment.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency response
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency note the responses and intend to proceed with the existing criteria as drafted since this maintains the status quo of existing Code requirements.
Q8. Do you consider it appropriate to include a requirement for vessels certificated to operate in Area Category of Operation 2 to carry rearming kits for 100% of the inflatable lifejackets carried? Yes / No. Please provide a brief explanation why/why not.
Summary of consultee views
There were 157 responses to this question where the majority did not agree with the mandatory carriage of rearming kits for inflatable lifejackets.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency response
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency welcomes the feedback. The proposal to include rearming kits for inflatable lifejackets was made on the basis that these were a relatively low cost, easy means of ensuring continued use of lifejackets in the event of deployment when offshore; however, based on the feedback received, there is some reluctance from manufacturers to support the proposal and so amendments have been made to the Code to permit these as an option without making it a mandatory requirement.
Q9. Do you consider it appropriate to include a requirement for vessels certificated to operate in Area Category of Operation 2 to carry 1 x SART and 1 X EPIRB? Yes / No. Please provide a brief explanation why/why not.
Summary of consultee views
There were 148 responses to this question. The majority of respondents were against the proposal for mandatory carriage of SART/EPIRB in Category 2 with many believing the existing requirements were sufficient, and that carriage of these devices forms part of the wider SAR equipment/network and would not be necessary in Category 2.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency response
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency welcomes the feedback and will not proceed with the proposal to require both SART and EPIRB for Category 2 operations. The existing requirements will be continued into the new Code.
Q10. Do you consider the additional requirements in section 25.6 for vessels operating at high-speed to be appropriate to ensuring improvements in safety in this sector? Yes / No. Please provide a brief explanation why/why not, and if not, please provide any relevant insight and/or evidence to support this.
Summary of consultee views
Although the majority of the 149 responses to this question were recorded as a nil response, there were many additional comments received on this subject. The majority of those that did provide a response to the question were against the proposals.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency response
In reviewing the additional comments relating to this question, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency note that many of the objections were towards the mandatory exclusion of seating in the forward 1/3rd of the vessel’s length and the associated impact this would have on these operators. The forward 1/3rd of the vessel is considered to be an area of the vessel that is subjected to higher risk when travelling at high speed and it is right that mitigations of these risks are included in the new Code of Practice; however, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency have reassessed and amended the requirements around seating based on the feedback received, placing further emphasis on a suitable risk assessment of operations and weather/sea conditions as a means to maintain safety for those passengers on board.
Q11. Do you consider the saving and transitional arrangements reasonable and appropriate? Yes / No. Please provide a brief explanation why/why not.
Summary of consultee views
There were 138 responses to this question with the majority in favour of the proposed transitional arrangements for existing vessels.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency response
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency welcomes the feedback. It is a key part of harmonising all the existing Codes of Practice into the one new Code that existing vessels are given the appropriate time and opportunity to transition to the new requirements. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency believe the proposed transitional arrangements achieve this objective and intend to proceed as drafted.
Q12. Do you believe the costings which have been monetised (visible in figures 5-8) provide an accurate representation of the cost incurred for those vessels operating? If not, how would you expect the estimated costs to vary?
Summary of consultee views
There were 141 responses to this question with the majority believing the costings set out in the De Minimus Assessment were not representative of the costs associated with crew training (in general), the required radar training, implementation of safety management systems, as well as the cost of additional vessel examinations.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency response
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency carried out a thorough analysis of the costings involved, based on the information that was available at the time. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is grateful for the additional information that has been supplied, and this has been incorporated into revised De Minimus Assessment.
Q13. Do you agree with the assumption that the only cost imposed onto business is the cost of familiarisation to the new Code? If not, please provide any insight/ evidence and outline any other costs you believe will be incurred.
Summary of consultee views
There were 152 responses to this question with the majority believing the costings set out as ‘Code familiarisation’ in the De Minimus Assessment were not representative of the only costs to be borne by operators under the new Code. There were similar additional comments to those set out for question 12, with respondents citing costs associated with training, additional equipment required to be carried on board, additional vessel examinations as key costs that did not appear to have been considered.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency response
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency welcomes the feedback. Many of the responses stated costs that were associated with the transition of existing vessels to the new Code. In reviewing some of the requirements linked to transitional arrangements for existing vessels and the acceptance of existing training requirements and standards for existing crew, it is believed the majority of concerns will be negated.
Q14. Are you/ do you know of a small and/or micro business(es) who will be disproportionally affected by any of the measures outlined? (If so, please provide relevant detail and evidence).
Summary of consultee views
There were 148 responses to this question with the majority believing there would be small or micro businesses disproportionately affected by the implementation of the new Code. These included charitable organisations that do not charge a fee for the voyages they provide, training centres and sole operators that would not have the financial ability to react to the new requirements set out in the draft Code.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency response
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency notes the feedback. It is acknowledged there are a significant proportion of small and micro businesses operating in this sector; however, it is the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s belief that all operators will benefit from the additional safety and greater clarity of requirements introduced in the new Code. In reviewing some of the requirements linked to transitional arrangements for existing vessels and the acceptance of existing training requirements and standards for existing crew, it is believed the impact on small/micro businesses will be negated as far as possible.
Q15. Do you foresee any unintended consequences of the proposed Code that have not been mentioned in this document? (If so, please provide any relevant insight and/or evidence).
Summary of consultee views
There were 148 responses to this question with the majority believing there would be some unintended consequences of proceeding with the proposed Sport or Pleasure Vessel Code in its current form, such as operators having to reduce the number of passengers carried on board high-speed vessels to comply with the proposed seating arrangements, and the associated costs of training for crews.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency response
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency welcomes all the feedback that has been received. Where there were areas of concern, such as the restriction on seating in the forward 1/3rd of the vessel, the increase in survey requirements or the mandatory carriage of equipment, appropriate amendments have been made to the draft Code that address these concerns. There are some proposals in the Code that have not been amended based on the feedback, such as those existing provisions which are unchanged from previous editions of the Code and the distinction in training requirements for operators employing ‘paid staff’ and ‘volunteers’. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency acknowledges that some of the new requirements of the Code may be a challenge to some operators, and where possible, these impacts have been reduced as far as possible whilst still allowing the new Code of Practice to provide the desired levels of safety for this sector.
4.4. The responses to questions in Part 2 relating to the proposed Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) Regulations 2025 removing the marine equipment exemption for large yachts received relatively few responses as the overwhelming volume of responses was aimed at the revisions to the small commercial vessel sector.
4.5. Of the 25 responses received that expressed an opinion other than ‘nil response’, there was no clear consensus on this matter and therefore it is the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s intention to proceed as drafted in the SI as this aligns with the UK’s wider policy on acceptance and use of marine equipment on UK vessels.
4.6. Further details of all the responses received can be found in Annex A.
Section 5: Next Steps
5.1. Subject to the amendments made to the draft legislation published for consultation noted in this report and its annexes, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency intends to introduce this new legislation as soon as possible.
5.2. There will be a short period of time between the new rules being laid in Parliament and coming into force. This is to ensure that anyone who may be affected by this legislation is familiar with it ahead of its entry into force.
5.3. The Regulations will be published on www.legislation.gov.uk
5.4. Every effort will be made to publish the revised Code and accompanying guidance on gov.uk in advance of Regulations coming into force.
List of Annexes Included in this Consultation Report
The following Annexes can be found with this consultation report on the Gov.UK website: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-merchant-shipping-vessels-in-commercial-use-for-sport-or-pleasure-regulations-2025